Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2136; 1974CriLJ1465; (1975)3SCC210; [1975]1SCR881
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises questions regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, XXIX of 1966. The main question for division is whether the inquiry which an officer of the Railway Protection Force holds under Section 8(1) of the Act is an investigation within the meaning of the CrPC, 1898. If so, statements recorded during the course of the inquiry would be inadmissible in evidence by reason of the injunction contained in Section 162 of the Code. A further question which requires consideration is whether the entire trial is vitiated if signatures of witnesses are obtained on the statements made by them during the course of the inquiry.2. The respondent Durga Prasad was working as a Turner in the Railway Workshop at Gorakhpur. On April 2, 1968 he was found in possession of a steel rod and two pieces of moulded brass shells belonging to the Railway. After the preparation of a recovery memo the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(1)SC31; 1994(5)SCALE107; (1995)1SCC428; [1994]Supp6SCR316
J.S. Verma, J.1. The above appeal by special leave is against the order dated 11,4.1994 passed under Section 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the one member Tribunal comprising of B.M. Lal, J., a Judge of the Allahabad High Court constituted under Section 5 of the Act, confirming the declaration made by the Central Government in the notification dated 10 12.1992 issued under Sub-section (1) of' Section 3 of the Act that Jamaat-E-Islami-Hind is an 'unlawful association' as defined in the said Act. The above writ petition has been filed in addition to the said appeal, in the alternative, for a declaration that the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder arc unconstitutional and ultra vires some of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India.2. The broad submission of Shri Soli J. Sorabjee on behalf of the said association is, that in the event a construction is made of the provisions of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 101(2006)CLT235(SC); [2005(107)FLR848]; JT2005(12)SC358; (2006)ILLJ332SC; 2005(8)SCALE211; (2005)8SCC428; 2006(1)SLJ343(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court (Shilong Bench) dated 22nd November, 2001.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Respondent joined the Appellant Bank as a Clerk-cum-Typist sometime in 1963. In 1968 the Respondent appeared in the CAIIB Examination conducted by the Indian Institute of Bankers (for short IIB). The examination was being held in the premises of the Shilong Branch of the Appellant Bank. One of the senior Officers of the Appellant Bank, by name Shri T. P. Barua, was the Invigilator during the examination.3. According to the Appellant Bank, the said Shri T. P. Barua found that the Respondent was copying from books. This is denied by the Respondent who claims that he had noticed that the said Shri T. P. Barua was favouring other candidates and helping them cheat. We are not concerned with this dispute except to note that the Respondent wrote three letters dated 1st November, 1968, 2nd November, 1968 and 7th November, 1968...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR96]; (2008)3GLR2138(SC); JT2008(5)SC546; (2008)IIILLJ1SC; (2008)5MLJ854(SC); 2008(7)SCALE32; 2008AIRSCW3460; 2008-III-LLJ-1; 2008LabIC2403
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein challenges Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing his Writ Appeal. The said Writ Appeal was filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge of that court whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent-bank was allowed setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal had answered the Reference in favour of the appellant and had set aside the punishment of discharge as also the other punishments and restricted the said punishment to stoppage of one year's increment. 3. Following facts will highlight the controversy involved. Appellant Mavji C. Lakum had joined the services of the Respondent-bank as a Peon on 1.9.1951. He was promoted as a Head Peon in the year 1963. While in service, two charge-sheets came to be served upon the appellant and an inquiry was held against him and he came to be discharged from the service by an order dated 22.5.1984. This order was ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)487; 2008(1)BomCR248; [2008(116)FLR174]; (2008)1SCC514; 2008AIRSCW419; 2008LabIC757; 2008(1)LH(SC)93; 2008(1)KCCR257
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant herein is a judicial officer. His services were terminated by the Government of Maharashtra on the recommendations made by the High Court of Bombay relying on or on the basis of a report of an inquiry officer appointed to inquire into the charges leveled against him.3. Appellant joined the judicial service in the State of Maharashtra on 16th November, 1995. His wife wasan officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India wherefrom she resigned in December, 2003.4. In relation to orders of transfer passed against him, the appellant on various occasions had been issued several memos. It is not necessary for us to deal therewith. 5. Several strictures were also passed against him, on the judicial side. Several adverse remarks were also passed. A complaint was made on 24th January, 2001 wherein the following allegations were made against the appellant, that he was in the habit of:(a) 'refusing to grant leave.(b) Issuing notices intentionally(c) Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1552; 2009(1)ALT18; 2009(1)AWC594(SC); (2009)2SCC377:2009AIRSCW1074
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. Both these appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated April 02, 2004, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1853 of 2003 and 2077 of 2002.3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeals, relevant facts in nutshell may be noted.4. According to the appellant Essco Fabs Pvt. Ltd. (`Essco' for short), the Government of Haryana intended to acquire land for public purpose, viz., for utilization of land as residential, commercial and industrial area in Sector Nos. 11, 12 and 25 Part-II by Haryana Urban Development Authority (`HUDA' for short). For the said purpose, the Government issued a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on December 15, 1982. The land mentioned in the said notification situated in village Kheri Nangal was sought to be acquired. A final notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC195; 1985CriLJ516; 1985(1)Crimes86(SC); 1984(2)SCALE942; (1985)1SCC317; [1985]2SCR256
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The appeal is under Article 134 with leave from the Calcutta High Court and is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of that Court dated September 27, 1983. The Special Leave Petition is under Article 136 of the Constitution and is also directed against the same decision. Both these matters are thus connected and arise out of the incident relating to the death of two young boys of Barrackpore area near Calcutta, This Judgment of ours will dispose of both the matters,2. Two letters, one by one Sampat Lal, respondent 1 in the criminal appeal and another by respondents l(a) to 11 n), both dated June 1, 1983, were received by me learned Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. The letter sent by Sampat Lai alleged that two young boys by names Tirthankar Das Sharma and Sanjib Chatterjee, living in Barrackpore area, were missing since the afternoon of March 2, 1983. Information was given at the local police station late at night on the same day and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC917; 1981CriLJ341; 1981(1)SCALE179; (1981)2SCC109; [1981]2SCR661
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated April 5. 1974 of the Calcutta High Court by which the order of the trial court was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh hearing in the light of the directions given by the High Court. The High Court further directed that the Commitment Inquiry held by Mr. R.P. Roy Chowdhury, who was the trial Magistrate, should be held by some other Magistrate.2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and the central controversy turns upon the interpretation of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It appears that a complaint was filed on the 20th March 1969 against 38 accused persons under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 9 and 10 of the Act. The charges against the accused were no doubt very serious and concerned the security of the State, as the accused persons are alleged to have passed on some military secret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2348; 1995(1)ALT(Cri)674; 1995CriLJ3994; (1995)2GLR992; JT1995(2)SC587; 1995(2)SCALE200; (1995)2SCC584; [1995]2SCR638; 1995(2)LC93(SC)
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. On 10th March, 1994; Justice S.K. Keshote of the Allahabad High Court addressed a letter to the Acting Chief Justice of that Court as follows :No. SKK/ALL/8/94 10.3.94Dear brother Actg. Chief Justice,Though on 9.3.94 itself I orally narrated about the misbehavior of Sh. B.C. Misra with me in the Court but I thought it advisable to give you same in writing also.On 9.3.94 I was sitting with Justice Anshuman Singh in Court No. 38. In the list of fresh cases of 9.3.94 at Sr. No. 5 FAFO Record No. 22793 M/s. Bansal Forgings Ltd. v. U.P.F. Corp. filed by Smt. S.V. Misra was listed. Sh. B.C. Misra appeared in this case when the case was called.Brief facts of that caseM/s. Bansal Forgings Ltd. took loan from U.P. Financial Corporation and it made default in payment of instalment of the same. Corporation proceeded against the Company Under Section 29 of the U.P. Financial Corporation Act. The company filed a Civil Suit against the Corporation and it has also field an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC181; (1969)1SCC844; [1970]1SCR103
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging, inter alia, the Constitutionality of Sections 46 and 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act No. 17 of 1966), hereinafter called the 'Act' and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writs and directions to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, hereinafter called the 'Commissioner', prohibiting him from exercising his powers or taking action under the aforesaid sections.2. The petitioner claims to be the Mathadhipathi of Shri Swami Hathiramji Math Tripathi-Thirumalla in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that this institution was founded several centuries ago and is one of the renowned Maths in India. Hundreds of Sadhus visit the Math throughout the year and it is the duty of the Mahant as its religious head to provide the visiting Sadhus with food and shelter and to perform all re...
Tag this Judgment!